Partly allowed

M/S. Rajshri Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. the Deputy Commissoner of Sales Tax (App) Vii, Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2009WP/1007/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed persistent default orders against the petitioner regarding sales tax assessments. Due to lawyer failure, the court set aside impugned orders, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration upon petitioner's appearance, and awarded costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matter restored to A.O. for reconsideration; costs of Rs. 25,000 awarded.

M/S. Rajshri Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1007 OF 2009

¶5

M/s. Rajshi Products (P) Ltd. ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax

¶8

(App) VII, mumbai City, Mubai & Ors.

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Mr. C.B.Thakkar i/b. C.B.Thakkar & Co.,Advocates fo the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Geeta Shastri, AGP, for the Respondents.

¶12

CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND

¶13

J.H.BHATIA,JJ.

¶14

DATE: 3^rd July, 2009.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

Rule. Heard forthwith.

¶17

This is a case of persistent default on the part of the petitioner in

¶18

appearing before the various adjudicating authorities right from the stage of the

¶19

A.O. The learned Counsel submits that they had engaged Advocates and it is the

¶20

failure on the part of the Advocates to appear and for that purpose the petitioner

¶21

should not be non-suited. It is also pointed out that in subsequent years they have

¶22

put in appearances and assessments have been done as per law.We have examined

¶23

¶24

the record. The assessment orders are of the years 1993-94 and 1994-95.

¶25

However, considering the subsequent record of the petitioner, namely,

¶26

that they have appeared before the authorities and also the fact that they were taking steps and preferring appeals at various stages, the failure by their lawyers to appear should not result in the petitioner not getting an opportunity to put their say in the matter. The State can be compensated by way of costs. In the light of the matter, the impugned orders of the second appellate Authority and the first Appellate Authority as also of the A.O are set aside. The matter is restored back to the file of A.O. for reconsideration according to law subject to costs as set out in para 4. The petitioner to appear along with the documentary evidence before the A.O. on 4.8.2009 at 11.00 a.m. The A.O. Thereafter to proceed according to law.

¶27

Costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid within one month from today. Cheque

¶28

to be drawn in favour of “RBI – Account Sales Tax” . On Failure to pay costs within time set out, the order of the 2^nd Appellate Authority stands confirmed. On payment of costs, the orders stand set aside.

¶29

Rule made absolute accordingly.

¶30

(J.H.BHATIA,J.)

M/S. Rajshri Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. the Deputy Commissoner of Sales Tax (App) Vii, Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Rajshri Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. the Deputy Commissoner of Sales Tax (App) Vii, Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Hakimee Construction Vs the Union of India and Others

Bharat J. Shah Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Javed Ahmad Ansari Vs Union of India and Anr.

Icici Bank Ltd. and 1 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Bal Jagannath Maharaj Pandit and Ors. Vs Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Ushadevi Agarwal Vs Shri S Venugopalan and Ors.